New Study Indicates Green New Deal Will Cost Each American Household Tens Of Thousands Annually
Yesterday, the Democrat candidates for the presidential nomination “free stuff” give-away was covered based on the second debate on CNN (Corruption News Network). The increased cost to government was staggering, to say the least, and absolutely insane, ludicrous, irresponsible, and unconstitutional all the way around. But, what will it cost the American public?
According to CNSnews.com, to adhere to the Green New Deal in order to “combat” the climate change hoax, each American household can expect to spend at least $70,000 in the first year.
A new study by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) shows that the Green New Deal, a federal plan to allegedly combat global warming, would cost American families – in the five states studied — more than $70,000 for electricity, upgrades in vehicles, housing, and shipping in the first year of the plan’s operation.
The Green New Deal (H.R. 109 and S. 59) essentially is a massive stimulus program to implement green initiatives across the board in the United States. It is based upon the national New Deal programs of the Roosevelt administration in the 1930s, and it is supported by some liberal Democrats, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.).
It is also backed by liberal environmental groups, such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and the Sierra Club.
The experts at CEI and Power the Future conducting the study only analyzed five States – Alaska, New Mexico, Florida, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania, due to their “diverse climates, geography, economies and population to help to understand the proposal’s broader national impact”. With this data in hand and using existing “green” data, CEI and Power the Future looked at the cost of AOC’s “Green New Deal” in the following categories: “additional electricity demands; costs associated with shipping and the logistics industry; new vehicles; and, building retrofits”.
- Activate Your Own Stem Cells & Reverse The Aging Process - Choose "Select & Save" OR Join, Brand Partner & Select Silver To Get Wholesale Prices
- Get your Vitamin B17 & Get 10% Off With Promo Code TIM
- How To Protect Yourself From 5G, EMF & RF Radiation
- Protect Your Income & Retirement Assets With Gold & Silver
- Grab This Bucket Of Heirloom Seeds & Get Free Shipping With Promo Code TIM
- Here’s A Way You Can Stockpile Food For The Future
- Stockpile Your Ammo & Save $15 On Your First Order
- Preparing Also Means Detoxifying – Here’s One Simple Way To Detoxify
The results showed that the GND “would cost a typical household more than $70,000 in the first year of implementation, approximately $45,000 for each of the next four years, and more than $37,000 each year thereafter.”
“In Alaska, estimated costs are much higher: more than $100,000 in year one, $73,000 in the subsequent four years, and more than $67,000 each year thereafter,” reported CEI.
A chart breaks it down more simply by State and costs by years.
Let’s do some math.
For Alaska, the total cost for the first 10 years is $730,553. And, for the duration of your life, the household will be paying $67.536 annually for the Green New Deal. How is this affordable when the median annual income for Alaska residents is $73,181?
Florida residents fair a bit better than Alaska at a total cost for 10 years of $444,558. The lifetime duration annually thereafter is $37,832. Median household income in Florida is $52,594. With Florida having a significant retirement population on fixed incomes, this could cause hardship. What about retired individuals who winter in Florida and summer in their main home in the north?
Any individual who owns two or more homes must double or triple these costs since it is per household.
There is no need to go any further with the math. The picture is painted. New Hampshire has a median annual income of $73,381 using datausa.io; New Mexico comes in at $46,744 median annual income; and, Pennsylvania rounds out the five studied at $59,195 annual median income.
In the first 10 years, each household will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars or the cost of a nice home for AOC’s Green New Deal.
If you don’t own a home and rent, the landlord would be responsible for upgrading. That cost would then be passed on to the renter, meaning rent would increase exponentially. Most individuals may not be able to afford housing at the new rates. What about low-income housing maintained by State and local governments? No need to explain since the picture has been drawn and framed.
“The Green New Deal is a radical blueprint to de-carbonize the American economy by refashioning how we grow food, move people and goods, source and distribute electricity, and build the structures where we live, work, and play,” said CEI President Kent Lassman.
“Our analysis shows that, if implemented, the Green New Deal would cost for American households at least tens of thousands of dollars annually on a permanent basis,” he said. “Perhaps that’s why exactly zero Senate Democrats, including the resolution’s 12 co-sponsors, voted for the Green New Deal when they had the chance.”
Power the Future Executive Director Daniel Turner said, “This study only calculates a fraction of the cost of Alexandria-Ocasio Cortez’s radical plan, which amounts to a socialist free-for-all with no regard for the American taxpayer.”
“No family should be forced to pay tens of thousands of dollars in the first year alone to fund AOC’s ideological wish list,” said Turner. “Thankfully, Americans see through the Green New Deal and are beginning to fight back.”
Looking at one cost element, energy/electricity, CEI noted the work done by the energy research firm Wood Mackenzie. This group “estimates that the greening of the U.S. power sector would cost approximately $35,000 per household and take 20 years,” reported CEI. “Wood Mackenzie estimate a total price tag of some $4.7 trillion, including around $1.5 trillion to add 1,600 gigawatts of wind and solar capacity and $2.5 trillion of investments in 900 gigawatts of storage.”
“Another $700 billion is estimated for new high transmission power lines to move that electricity from sun-drenched deserts and windswept plains to the urban areas where it would be used,” reported CEI.
In summary, this Green New Deal plan proposed by AOC and supported by the Democratic Party presidential nominee contenders, despite not one individual casting a vote to support it, is UNREALISTIC. It is also unconstitutional. So, why are these liars standing up giving lip service support to an unrealistic, unconstitutional plan to fight the climate change hoax none of them cast a vote to support in Congress? Simple; they are pandering to the brainless environmentalist parrot voting base to get a vote.
The cost of this “Green New Deal” is in addition to the other spending on “free stuff” that will raise taxes on median annual income. Remember, the median annual income is gross income, not net income, which will change should a “freebie” Democrat enter office because taxes will have to increase to cover their socialist/communist programs and policies. Moreover, projected costs are just that – an estimated cost, which could go up or down based on inflation.
Friends, it’s long past time to pull out the pen and paper or the calculator to do some math on all these “proposals”, like John Stossel did after the second Democratic Party candidate debate. Just remember, not all individuals work and pay taxes. Therefore, those individuals reliant on the government teat will need some type of subsidy to upgrade their home. Who pays? The taxpayer. Not only will the taxpayers be responsible for upgrading their home, but will be taxed more to “assist” others to upgrade theirs.
One could say this proposal is so ridiculous there is no way anyone in either chamber of Congress would vote for this disastrous monstrosity. Well, think again. If these brain dead vote beggars are willing to bankrupt the country and the taxpayer on “free stuff”, they would have no qualms about doing it under the ruse of climate change claiming “ it’s for the sake of the Earth and the children”. And, just to clarify, Republicans would be no better. Wealth redistribution is part and parcel for both sides of the aisle. The only difference is the way in which each party implements it.
Article posted with permission from Sons Of Liberty Media